Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump

[98 Guy]

Remember when I posted this on November 13?

=========
Head of Micro$haft's Windoze unit (Steven Sinofsky) kicked out on his
ass because Windoze 8 sucks
=========

Well, it looks like it's official.

Windoze 8 is sucking the life out of Micro$haft.

=======================
Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2235853/windows-8-fails-to-deliver-expected-boost-as-christmas-pc-sales-slump

FOURTH QUARTER SALES in the PC market fell once again as computer
vendors wrapped up a disappointing 2012.

Research firm IDC said that over the final quarter of the year, revenues
were down some 6.4 percent compared to the same period in 2011. Overall,
researchers found that three of the top five PC vendors saw a drop in
shipments on the quarter.

An IDC analyst blamed the drop on the vendors, which he said had
mismanaged the rollout of Windows 8 systems.
========================

Microsoft's motto -> "If it works, it's not complicated enough".

That motto is what drives Micro$haft to instill ever higher levels of
bloat and complexity with each new version of Windoze.

With bloat and complexity comes vulnerability.

Windoze NT (and it's offspring) -> code made from the finest, most
expensive threads, intended to tantilize the masses like the emperor's
new clothes.

With Windoze-NT, vulnerability is built-in.

[Auric__]

98 Guy wrote:

> Remember when I posted this on November 13?
>
> =========
> Head of Micro$haft's Windoze unit (Steven Sinofsky) kicked out on his
> ass because Windoze 8 sucks
> =========
>
> Well, it looks like it's official.
>
> Windoze 8 is sucking the life out of Micro$haft.
>
> =======================
> Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2235853/windows-8-fails-to-
> deliver-expected-boost-as-christmas-pc-sales-slump
>
> FOURTH QUARTER SALES in the PC market fell once again as computer
> vendors wrapped up a disappointing 2012.
>
> Research firm IDC said that over the final quarter of the year, revenues
> were down some 6.4 percent compared to the same period in 2011. Overall,
> researchers found that three of the top five PC vendors saw a drop in
> shipments on the quarter.
>
> An IDC analyst blamed the drop on the vendors, which he said had
> mismanaged the rollout of Windows 8 systems.
> ========================
>
> Microsoft's motto -> "If it works, it's not complicated enough".

More like "If it works, time for a new version."

> That motto is what drives Micro$haft to instill ever higher levels of
> bloat and complexity with each new version of Windoze.
>
> With bloat and complexity comes vulnerability.
>
> Windoze NT (and it's offspring) -> code made from the finest, most
> expensive threads, intended to tantilize the masses like the emperor's
> new clothes.
>
> With Windoze-NT, vulnerability is built-in.

Well... I could argue the point, but since NT is what MS is actively
developing, that's where new vulnerabilities are most likely to pop up.

--
Requiring the purchase of more software is not a valid solution.

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

Auric__ wrote:
> 98 Guy wrote:
>
>> Remember when I posted this on November 13?
>>
>> =========
>> Head of Micro$haft's Windoze unit (Steven Sinofsky) kicked out on his
>> ass because Windoze 8 sucks
>> =========
>>
>> Well, it looks like it's official.
>>
>> Windoze 8 is sucking the life out of Micro$haft.
>>
>> =======================
>> Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2235853/windows-8-fails-to-
>> deliver-expected-boost-as-christmas-pc-sales-slump
>>
>> FOURTH QUARTER SALES in the PC market fell once again as computer
>> vendors wrapped up a disappointing 2012.
>>
>> Research firm IDC said that over the final quarter of the year, revenues
>> were down some 6.4 percent compared to the same period in 2011. Overall,
>> researchers found that three of the top five PC vendors saw a drop in
>> shipments on the quarter.
>>
>> An IDC analyst blamed the drop on the vendors, which he said had
>> mismanaged the rollout of Windows 8 systems.
>> ========================
>>
>> Microsoft's motto -> "If it works, it's not complicated enough".
>
> More like "If it works, time for a new version."

or "If it works, Someone stuffed up!!"

>> That motto is what drives Micro$haft to instill ever higher levels of
>> bloat and complexity with each new version of Windoze.
>>
>> With bloat and complexity comes vulnerability.
>>
>> Windoze NT (and it's offspring) -> code made from the finest, most
>> expensive threads, intended to tantilize the masses like the emperor's
>> new clothes.
>>
>> With Windoze-NT, vulnerability is built-in.
>
> Well... I could argue the point, but since NT is what MS is actively
> developing, that's where new vulnerabilities are most likely to pop up.

Daniel

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:25:12 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>=======================
>Windows 8 fails to deliver expected boost as Christmas PC sales slump
>
>http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2235853/windows-8-fails-to-deliver-expected-boost-as-christmas-pc-sales-slump
>
>FOURTH QUARTER SALES in the PC market fell once again as computer
>vendors wrapped up a disappointing 2012.
>
>Research firm IDC said that over the final quarter of the year, revenues
>were down some 6.4 percent compared to the same period in 2011. Overall,
>researchers found that three of the top five PC vendors saw a drop in
>shipments on the quarter.

>=======================

Is this result any different for other market segments, eg cars, white
goods, consumer electronics?

What I'd like to see is a clear comparison between the Windows
versions detailing the features that are added by each new release. In
other words, what do we get in Windows 8 that we don't have in Windows
7, Vista, XP, etc?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

[philo]

I tried the "DP" version of Win8. Other than Metro (which I turned off)
it was the same as Win7 only with slightly better performance.

If you don't have a touch screen, I see no point to Metro,
though I guess a few people like it.

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[Sjouke Burry]

philo  <philo@priv cy.not> wrote in news:kcvh54$lpp$1...@dont-email.me:

Deliberate incompatibilitty, to force you to drop working software
and make you buy partly operational new software and problems.

[home...@home.com]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:25:12 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

>Microsoft's motto -> "If it works, it's not complicated enough".
>
>That motto is what drives Micro$haft to instill ever higher levels of
>bloat and complexity with each new version of Windoze.
>
>With bloat and complexity comes vulnerability.
>
>Windoze NT (and it's offspring) -> code made from the finest, most
>expensive threads, intended to tantilize the masses like the emperor's
>new clothes.
>
>With Windoze-NT, vulnerability is built-in.

Which is exactly why I use Windows98se. 98 was the last decent OS made
by MS. As soon as NT entered the picture, their OSs were garbage/ I
hated XP the first time I tried it, and hate it just as much today.

I have XP on a laptop, but that is only for occasional use at WIFI spots
and is the only thing I use that computer for. I stripped much of the
bloat crap out of it.

My home computer is a REAL computer. It runs Win98se. It also dual
boots to Win2000, which is seldom used, but is there for a few programs
that wont run in 98. Win2000 was still tolerable, but it was a turn in
the wrong direction for MS.

MS seems to think that we need to constantly upgrade and buy new
computers. It's no wonder sales are down. We have a minority of people
who need to constantly upgrade and must have the latest systems. Most
of them are young and use their computers as game machines. The rest of
us, actually use our computers to be productive. There is no way in
hell that I want to keep upgrading, having to relearn a new OS and
change my software programs. My computer is a tool used to be
productive, and I have learned to use it with ease. Having to keep
changing things makes it worthless to me. If I cant turn on the
computer and create something or access my personal stuff, then there is
no point having one.

And all that fucking bloat added just makes me less interested. I like
simplicity. Not only that, but Windows is an Operating System. That
means it operates the actual hardware. It SHOULD be pretty invisible,
and the programs that all of us install should be the focus. But MS
continues to add "in your face" shit to their OSs. XP did it, Vista did
it more. I have not even tried Win7 or 8. I have no interest in them
at all. Just using XP annoys me.

If MS had any smarts, they would have continues to support Win98, maybe
added a few features, such as better USB support, larger drive support,
and the ability to use more RAM. They dont seem to realize that some of
us simply dont want all their few fangled bloat, and all that added
power. Those os us who like simplicity are ignored. But what they dont
realize is that we too will buy stuff from them if they offer what we
want.

Personally, I can do everything with Win98 that I can do with XP and up.
All my (mostly older) software works just fine and is used to be
productive. Where Win98 is failing today, is with the internet, and
only with the internet. The new websites (with all their bloat), wont
run well on older browsers, and newer browsers wont run on Win98. But I
think that's all planned, to force us to upgrade to all this newer crap.

I'm not giving up on Win98. If anything, I may have to have two
computers soon. One for internet use, and my trusty Win98 system for
everything else. But that seems like a pain in the ass, because I'll
have to keep moving stuff from the internet computer to the Win98 one,
when I download things. But if this is what must be done, the newer
computer used for the internet, will NOT run any MS operating system.
It's either going to be a Macintosh, or a PC running linux, which will
just run a web browser and little more. I'm already finding I have ot
use the XP laptop sometimes for stubborn internet sites.

But, once again, MS will lose the money I may have paid if they
continued to support and make slight improvements to Win98. I dont want
their new shit. Even after all the years XP has been out, I still hate
it. That's the problem with computers. We have no choices. With cars
there are lots of makes and models. Some have all the bells nad
whistles, others are basic cars. This is true for almost all other
products. But with computers, you only have 2 choices. The PC with the
latest fuckup OS from MS, or the Mac.

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:36:14 -0000, <home...@home.com> wrote:

[snipped]

>
> Personally, I can do everything with Win98 that I can do with XP and up.
> All my (mostly older) software works just fine and is used to be
> productive. Where Win98 is failing today, is with the internet, and
> only with the internet. The new websites (with all their bloat), wont
> run well on older browsers, and newer browsers wont run on Win98. But I
> think that's all planned, to force us to upgrade to all this newer crap.
>

[snipped]

New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out
modern faster gizmos. And anything >2G. 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes
of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are progress. But I
mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA.

--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question

[98 Guy]

Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:

> New hardware won't have W98 drivers available.

As someone who has been building PC's from the motherboard up since
1987, I naturally have a stockpile of probably 4-dozen motherboards
ranging from 133mhz i486 to socket-775 boards with AGP/PCIe 3.6 ghz
pentiums.

My most-advanced win-98 system is running on an Asrock motherboard
(purchased new in 2007) with 3.6 ghz Core2 CPU, 1 gb ram, 256 mb Nvidia
6200 AGP video, with dual 1.5 tb SATA hard drives, and Creative Audigy-2
sound card. All the hardware components on the motherboard have win-98
drivers except for the on-board HD-audio sound. This is not a dual-boot
system, nor am I running win-98 in a virtual machine. This system is
booting and running win-98.

I have 6 such motherboards ready to build more systems when I need them.

I realize that the vast majority of people are handicapped in that they
don't have the intelligence or skill or experience or clue about
building their own PC, and hence they are a slave to what-ever is
available to them at the retail level - which usually means they have no
choice about which version of Windows will be forced on them when they
buy a new PC.

I also realize that the desktop PC itself is a dying segment of the
"personal computer" product space - with that space being taken over by
hand-held devices (phones, tablets, etc) and dwindling number of laptops
and netbooks.

> This means you miss out modern faster gizmos. And anything >2G.
> 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes of memory, w98 is limited
> to 2G IIRC.

Win-98 can "see" and use at most 1192 mb of ram, and it can't boot if
the system has more than 1.5 gb of physical ram.

But that's not the point.

For the vast majority of desktop-computer use-case situations, a win-98
system with 512 mb of ram can accomplish quite a bit (lots of open
windows and running programs). That's because unlike NT-based windows,
win-98 doesn't need a lot of ram to run lots of completely bloated and
unnecessary processes and services.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <p9vuf8938aqfig416...@4ax.com>,
home...@home.com writes:
[]

>MS seems to think that we need to constantly upgrade and buy new

No, what they think we need isn't known; however, THEY need the refresh
cycle, to keep them going.
[]

>us, actually use our computers to be productive. There is no way in
>hell that I want to keep upgrading, having to relearn a new OS and
>change my software programs. My computer is a tool used to be

I agree with you there! (XP SP3, with fancy graphics removed and
generally made to look like my '98SElite system, with Office 2003, here.
XP is of course now three versions of Windows ago.)
[]

>If MS had any smarts, they would have continues to support Win98, maybe
>added a few features, such as better USB support, larger drive support,
>and the ability to use more RAM. They dont seem to realize that some of
>us simply dont want all their few fangled bloat, and all that added
>power. Those os us who like simplicity are ignored. But what they dont
>realize is that we too will buy stuff from them if they offer what we
>want.

Realistically, you (and those like you/us) wouldn't in practice buy
enough to keep them in business. Be honest (-:!

>
>Personally, I can do everything with Win98 that I can do with XP and up.

No, you can (perhaps) do everything that you _want_ to do with XP and
up. There are certainly things XP can do that 98 can't, and more so for
later versions. Whether those are things you _want_ to do, only you can
know.

>All my (mostly older) software works just fine and is used to be
>productive. Where Win98 is failing today, is with the internet, and
>only with the internet. The new websites (with all their bloat), wont
>run well on older browsers, and newer browsers wont run on Win98. But I

Certainly it is mainly websites, though some large video data may also
cause problems.

>think that's all planned, to force us to upgrade to all this newer crap.

I used to think it was; I now think it's more a combination of lazy
programming and limited resources. Put it this way: it takes more effort
to code efficiently and compatibly. If someone (not just MS) has limited
money to spend on computer programmers, they're more likely to spend it
on new features (whether _you_ want them or not), or at the very least,
fixing bugs related to later OSs rather than earlier ones. (I still
respect people who _do_ code efficiently and compatibly, such as the
authors of USBDeview and IrfanView - the latter, in particular, does it
how it should be done: some of the features in the more recent versions
won't work on older OSs, but the new versions of the software still run
on the older OSs, the new features don't (all) work, so the users of the
older OSs are no worse off (in fact slightly better, as some new things
do, and some bugs are fixed).
[]

>But, once again, MS will lose the money I may have paid if they
>continued to support and make slight improvements to Win98. I dont want

What would you have paid them _for_, though - would you have paid for a
whole new 98, at the price (adjusted for inflation) you did in 98?

>their new shit. Even after all the years XP has been out, I still hate
>it. That's the problem with computers. We have no choices. With cars
>there are lots of makes and models. Some have all the bells nad
>whistles, others are basic cars. This is true for almost all other

Not actually so: in the UK at least, new cars have to comply with new
relations. This has killed off several classics of simplicity from being
made and sold as new cars - such as the original mini (no, not the BMW
twice the size one) on safety grounds (actually _many_ small cars), and
the Lada (and probably others) on emissions grounds, and probably many
others on assorted grounds.

>products. But with computers, you only have 2 choices. The PC with the
>latest fuckup OS from MS, or the Mac.

Or Linux PCs?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stoopid gesture be done
on somebody's part." "We're just the guys to do it." Eric "Otter" Stratton (Tim
Matheson) and John "Bluto" Blutarsky (John Belushi) - N. L's Animal House
(1978)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <50FFFA4D...@Guy.com>, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> writes:
[]

>I realize that the vast majority of people are handicapped in that they
>don't have the intelligence or skill or experience or clue about
>building their own PC, and hence they are a slave to what-ever is

A _little_ arrogant: true in probably the majority of cases, but also
the limitation of hardware availability. Not everyone has the money - or
knowledge to know which is going to remain a "good" choice - to lay in
stockpiles of components (motherboards, etc.) for which older OS drivers
(even XP, let alone 98) are available.

>available to them at the retail level - which usually means they have no
>choice about which version of Windows will be forced on them when they
>buy a new PC.

Certainly agree with you there: if I went to most of my local outlets, I
doubt I could find a Windows 7 machine now.

>
>I also realize that the desktop PC itself is a dying segment of the
>"personal computer" product space - with that space being taken over by
>hand-held devices (phones, tablets, etc) and dwindling number of laptops
>and netbooks.

Indeed. And home-build of laptops/netbooks isn't really possible for the
average punter.

>
>> This means you miss out modern faster gizmos. And anything >2G.
>> 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes of memory, w98 is limited
>> to 2G IIRC.
>
>Win-98 can "see" and use at most 1192 mb of ram, and it can't boot if
>the system has more than 1.5 gb of physical ram.
>
>But that's not the point.

It can be for some ...

>
>For the vast majority of desktop-computer use-case situations, a win-98
>system with 512 mb of ram can accomplish quite a bit (lots of open
>windows and running programs). That's because unlike NT-based windows,
>win-98 doesn't need a lot of ram to run lots of completely bloated and
>unnecessary processes and services.

Well, say, transcoding HR video in something approaching real-time will
make it squeak a bit. As to whether this constitutes "the vast
majority", there is a lot of truth in what you say - but also, what you
do _is_ tailored at least to some extent by what you know you _can_ do -
though it hurts to admit it.

(Certainly, most of what I do - email, usenet, and genealogy - could be
done perfectly well under Windows 3.1, or even DOS, though I like
task-switching to be available. But I probably _would_ do more with,
say, video, if I had more powerful hardware [with bigger discs], and a
larger internet monthly limit.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

live your dash. ... On your tombstone, there's the date you're born and the
date you die - and in between there's a dash. - a friend quoted by Dustin
Hoffman in Radio Times, 5-11 January 2013

[98 Guy]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> > I realize that the vast majority of people are handicapped in that
> > they don't have the intelligence or skill or experience or clue
> > about building their own PC, and hence they are a slave to what-
> > ever is
>
> A _little_ arrogant: true in probably the majority of cases, but
> also the limitation of hardware availability.

A limitation at the retail level - yes.

Although there are glaring exceptions. I posted this here in this
newsgroup last August:

-----------
Subject:
Asrock reviving production of win-98 compatible motherboard (775i65G
R3.0)

It appears that Asrock is reviving the production of this 5-year-old
motherboard:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=775i65G%20R3.0&cat=Specifications

This is a micro-atx form-factor board, with Intel socket-775 CPU
support. It has the Intel 865/ICHR-5 chipset, AGP slot for video, and
DDR-1 memory.

Has on-board video and SATA controller.

If you can find DDR ram these days, you'll pay 2 to 3 times the price
per gb vs DDR2/DDR3. And finding any socket-775 CPU's these days isin't
easy.

But if you can find the ram and the CPU, and if you want to run win-98
on a respectible motherboard, then if you can find this board - I
suggest you buy it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157338
==================

The newegg link still works - they list the board at $60.

So if you want to buy a "new" motherboard at retail that comes with full
win-98 drivers, you can.

But that's not your only option if you want to run win-98 on "modern"
hardware. Any system based on socket-478 motherboard is garanteed to
run win-98 and will have a full set of drivers available for it (if you
look for them).

> > For the vast majority of desktop-computer use-case situations,
> > a win-98 system with 512 mb of ram can accomplish quite a bit
> > (lots of open windows and running programs).
>

> Well, say, transcoding HR video in something approaching real-time
> will make it squeak a bit. As to whether this constitutes "the vast
> majority", there is a lot of truth in what you say -

And as I say, your example is not a typical use-case situation (although
the open-source VideoLan player can perform transcoding, and it does run
under win-98 with KernelEx).

> but also, what you do _is_ tailored at least to some extent by what
> you know you _can_ do - though it hurts to admit it.

The last major change to "what I do regularly with my win-98 computer"
was to become a heavy Skype user - and yes, at least the slightly older
versions of skype run just fine under win-98 with Kex.

What have I encountered recently that I wanted to do - but couldn't - on
my win-98 system?

I downloaded some music CD's that had been ripped from SACD source disks
and saved as iso images. The only player that seems to be able to play
them is Foobar 2000 - with the addition of foo_input_sacd.dll. I could
not get foobar 2000 to work with that DLL on my win-98 system with Kex.

But honestly - there really isin't a lot of stuff that I really want to
do, or certainly NEED to do, on a win-98 system that I can't do.

I certainly won't claim that win-98 is an appropriate visual-studio-6
software development platform, but again that's not what I use win-98
for.

And most certainly I can still admit that even the ancient Firefox
2.0.0.20 is a perfectly usable browser today - given the fact that I
have the most recent versions of Flash player and version 6 of Java JRE
installed (again with the help of Kex).

[home...@home.com]

I know the newest hardware wont have the drivers, but 98 dont need the
power these new systems offer. I repeat this often, and will say so
again. "Everytime faster computer hardware is developed, MS sucks the
speed backwards with their excessively large and bloated OSs". In other
words, in terms of actual speed, Win98 runs just as fast on older, less
powerful hardware than the newer OSs run on the faster hardware.

So, what is happening is that the actual usable speed of computers never
really gets faster, because the newest OSs, suck up all the extra power.
I'm running win98se on a 1000mhz P3 CPU, with 512 megs Ram. I know I
could upgrade to a faster MB, and may do so, but it cant be the newest
system. Yes, this is a semi-homemade system. My previous computer was
all homemade, but this is a modified IBM system. My former system was
kind of slow. It was 512 mhz or something like that. But this one is
plenty fast for me.

Oddly enough, I know someone who has a Dell computer with a Quad core P4
MB. It has XP installed. That thing is slower than molasses in
January. I can out type the thing in speed, using notepad. My Win98
system 1000mhz P3 is MUCH faster.

I'm satisfied with my speed, so I see no reason to get faster hardware,
but I might build a faster system if I find a faster MB compatible with
98 (drivers). That would just be for the heck of it, since I dont
really need the extra speed. But I wouldn't trade this computer for 10
of those Quad core Dells with XP.

These new systems may be "called" progress, but are they really? After
all, what is really needed by the average user, compared to what they
shove in our faces is not balanced. Except for the gamers, most of us
dont need all this power they now have. Add to that the fact these new
systems are power hungry on the electric bill. That Dell for example,
could be used to heat a small house. It has 3 or 4 fans. I know this
because their CPU fan died. That CPU was getting hot enough to fry and
egg, and then shutdown the system. I tested it by putting a window fan
next to it, and a cardboard shroud to divert the air to the CPU. Then
it stayed running, so I had the owner get a new fan, and I replaced it
for them.

Progress is when needs are balanced with practicallity. Progress for
one person is cutting down on their electric bill. For another it's the
fastest computer. I dont care to pay higher electric bills, overwork
the AC in the summer to spit the heat from the computer outdoors. And
making things complicated and bloated is not progress either. Computers
were supposed to make our lives easier. I've always questioned that,
because back in the 90's I spend hours and hours learning computers and
screwing with them, and programming them, etc.... Most of what I saved
was a pile of paper on my desk and some ink pens. But at the same time,
I enjoyed the computers back then, learned to be artistic with paint
programs and do other things that I did not do before computers. Not to
mention the internet became useful. But all of that came at a cost too.
Buying the hardware, the software, the added electricity, etc. And
computers can create a huge mess in ones life if they fail, and the user
has no backups of personal data.

Computers are here to stay, and they can be fun, but when someone says
they made life easier, I have to say that's not always true. They have
made some tasks easier, and given us access to librairies of info on the
internet that we never had before, But one needs to think of all the
costs and time spent setting up, learning, and using the computer. Are
we really ahead? It's just like these air powered nail guns that the
builders use these days. I worked in construction for years and I can
drive a nail quickly and easily with a plain old hammer. Then one day
someone handed me a nailgun. They were supposed to be progress.

OK, they did put in a nail a little faster than I could do by hand.
However, there is another side to this. It takes time to carry around a
heavy air compressor, set it up, drag out hoses, load the gun, and then
wait for the compressor to get enough pressure, which often meant
waiting every 5 minutes for it to build up enough air, if the compressor
is a little undersized. Then there is the added electricity needed to
run it.

[Auric__]

Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:

> New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out
> modern faster gizmos. And anything >2G. 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes
> of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are progress.

Microsoft has a chart here:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

...that covers memory limits from XP on. Basically:

- Win7x64 can use up to 192gb (limited by how much $ was spent on Windows)
- Server 2008 R2 can use up to 2tb (no x86 version)
- Win8x64 can use up to 512gb
- Server 2012 can use up to 4tb (no x86 version)

None of those do *me* any good; my only x64 workstation seems to be limited
to 1gb (it's a BIOS problem; it reports the installed RAM as 768mb
(incorrect!) and XP reports "704 MB" in System Properties... sigh).

> But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA.

I didn't remember much difference moving from 98 to 2000... but when I *had*
to move to XP a few years back (got a hard drive that 2000 *would not* use),
it was... interesting. I'm mostly used to it now. Mostly.

--
I'll just trot on down to the end of the line
and wait for my head to explode.

[home...@home.com]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:28:38 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:

>Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
>
>> New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out
>> modern faster gizmos. And anything >2G. 64bit W7 can handle many terabytes
>> of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are progress.
>

Are they really progress? Win98 never needed all that memory. I can
esily run 10 different programs at once and have 25 browser windows open
at the same time. That's when things start running slow, but that is
really an overload, and I need to close some stuff.

I have 512 megs of RAM. Win98 does not need more than that to run well.

But these new OSs suck all the RAM power before a program is even
opened. I still cant see any advantage to these newer OSs, except lots
of useless bloat. Well, Ok, to be honest and fair, the newer OSs did
fix the USB support that 98 lacks. And the newer OSs allow for huge
file sizes, which 98 did not. However I have never had any file even
close the the limit (I forget what the limit is).

>Microsoft has a chart here:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx
>
>...that covers memory limits from XP on. Basically:
>
>- Win7x64 can use up to 192gb (limited by how much $ was spent on Windows)
> - Server 2008 R2 can use up to 2tb (no x86 version)
>- Win8x64 can use up to 512gb
> - Server 2012 can use up to 4tb (no x86 version)
>
>None of those do *me* any good; my only x64 workstation seems to be limited
>to 1gb (it's a BIOS problem; it reports the installed RAM as 768mb
>(incorrect!) and XP reports "704 MB" in System Properties... sigh).
>
>> But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA.
>
>I didn't remember much difference moving from 98 to 2000... but when I *had*
>to move to XP a few years back (got a hard drive that 2000 *would not* use),
>it was... interesting. I'm mostly used to it now. Mostly.

Having Win2000 as my dual boot, I will say that it's not all that hard
to use, but was the beginning of the annoying NT system.

It began that nasty NTFS drive format, which I refuse to use. It began
that stupid folder called "Documents and Settings", which contains
"Administrators", "All Users", and "Default User". (This is one very
irritating thing for me, because I never know which one contains what,
and most are repeats......). After all, this computer is only used by
me, I'm the ONLY user, all of thse should be in ONE folder. Then there
came XP with all the stupid questions. Everyting I want to do, has a
"do you really want to ______". I get pissed at that shit. I didnt hit
the button to do _____ just for the hell of it...

And then comes the bootup and shutdown times. Both 2000 and XP seem to
take forever compared to 98. Hell, on my laptop with XP, I might just
turn it on for one minute, because I left myself a note, such as
someone's phone number. I read the note and shut off, then I'm forced
to hit TWO shutdown buttons (as if one isn't enough), and then I watch
it say "savings settings". WHAT SETTINGS? Not one fucking thing was
changed, I read a phone number, nothing else....

Thats what I like most about 98. I have it set to boot to dos. 20
seconds later I open my text file that contains my notes, and shut off
the computer. If I want to enter Win98, I "WW" which is my batch file
to start windows (actually it just runs WIN.COM).

You cant do this in W2000 or XP. You got to go thru the entire bootup
process, waste several minutes waiting for it to boot, and then go thru
the shutdown hassle. This is not progress! It should not take 5
minutes to access a tiny text file, and shut down.

Win2000 was irritating, XP seriously annoys me, I dont even want to
imagine how I'd feel about Win7 or 8....

[Auric__]

homeowner wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:28:38 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
> <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>
>>Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
>>
>>> New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out
>>> modern faster gizmos. And anything >2G. 64bit W7 can handle many
>>> terabytes of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are
>>> progress.
>>
> Are they really progress? Win98 never needed all that memory. I can
> esily run 10 different programs at once and have 25 browser windows open
> at the same time. That's when things start running slow, but that is
> really an overload, and I need to close some stuff.
>
> I have 512 megs of RAM. Win98 does not need more than that to run well.

Depends on what you're doing. I can easily imagine a situation where that
much just isn't enough.

> But these new OSs suck all the RAM power before a program is even
> opened. I still cant see any advantage to these newer OSs, except lots
> of useless bloat. Well, Ok, to be honest and fair, the newer OSs did
> fix the USB support that 98 lacks. And the newer OSs allow for huge
> file sizes, which 98 did not. However I have never had any file even
> close the the limit (I forget what the limit is).

2GB. About the only thing that gets that big right now is databases,
movies, and DVD images.

>>> But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA.
>>
>>I didn't remember much difference moving from 98 to 2000... but when I
>>*had* to move to XP a few years back (got a hard drive that 2000 *would
>>not* use), it was... interesting. I'm mostly used to it now. Mostly.
>
> Having Win2000 as my dual boot, I will say that it's not all that hard
> to use, but was the beginning of the annoying NT system.

Well, if you want to be accurate, NT dates back to the early 90's,
contemporary with Win3x.

> It began that nasty NTFS drive format, which I refuse to use.

Has its good points. If I was using a computer with *just* NT installed,
I'd use it... but the only thing I have that is *only* NT is my Win7
tablet. (Vista+ won't install on FAT drives, so in my case it's a moot
point.)

> It began
> that stupid folder called "Documents and Settings", which contains
> "Administrators", "All Users", and "Default User". (This is one very
> irritating thing for me, because I never know which one contains what,
> and most are repeats......). After all, this computer is only used by
> me, I'm the ONLY user, all of thse should be in ONE folder.

Can always run as the Administrator, and rename the account as you wish.
Just sayin'.

> Then there
> came XP with all the stupid questions. Everyting I want to do, has a
> "do you really want to ______". I get pissed at that shit. I didnt hit
> the button to do _____ just for the hell of it...

...but many people *do* hit things by accident.

> And then comes the bootup and shutdown times. Both 2000 and XP seem to
> take forever compared to 98. Hell, on my laptop with XP, I might just
> turn it on for one minute, because I left myself a note, such as
> someone's phone number. I read the note and shut off, then I'm forced
> to hit TWO shutdown buttons (as if one isn't enough), and then I watch
> it say "savings settings". WHAT SETTINGS? Not one fucking thing was
> changed, I read a phone number, nothing else....

But XP doesn't know that. It doesn't have a way to verify that nothing was
changed from startup to shutdown. Bad decision by MS, maybe, but them's the
way it is.

> Thats what I like most about 98. I have it set to boot to dos. 20
> seconds later I open my text file that contains my notes, and shut off
> the computer. If I want to enter Win98, I "WW" which is my batch file
> to start windows (actually it just runs WIN.COM).

You saved yourself 1 keytroke. Bravo. (Why not just name it 'w'?)

> You cant do this in W2000 or XP. You got to go thru the entire bootup
> process, waste several minutes waiting for it to boot, and then go thru
> the shutdown hassle. This is not progress! It should not take 5
> minutes to access a tiny text file, and shut down.
>
> Win2000 was irritating, XP seriously annoys me, I dont even want to
> imagine how I'd feel about Win7 or 8....

I've read that 8 has really improved startup times; supposedly at least on
par with 9x.

--
So when the fuck did you get a master's degree, you ninja?

[home...@home.com]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:51:55 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"

<not.m...@email.address> wrote:

>homeowner wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:28:38 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
>> <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>>
>>>Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
>>>
>>>> New hardware won't have W98 drivers available. This means you miss out
>>>> modern faster gizmos. And anything >2G. 64bit W7 can handle many
>>>> terabytes of memory, w98 is limited to 2G IIRC. These things are
>>>> progress.
>>>
>> Are they really progress? Win98 never needed all that memory. I can
>> esily run 10 different programs at once and have 25 browser windows open
>> at the same time. That's when things start running slow, but that is
>> really an overload, and I need to close some stuff.
>>
>> I have 512 megs of RAM. Win98 does not need more than that to run well.
>
>Depends on what you're doing. I can easily imagine a situation where that
>much just isn't enough.

Some pretty detailed graphic editing and sound file editing.

>
>> But these new OSs suck all the RAM power before a program is even
>> opened. I still cant see any advantage to these newer OSs, except lots
>> of useless bloat. Well, Ok, to be honest and fair, the newer OSs did
>> fix the USB support that 98 lacks. And the newer OSs allow for huge
>> file sizes, which 98 did not. However I have never had any file even
>> close the the limit (I forget what the limit is).
>
>2GB. About the only thing that gets that big right now is databases,
>movies, and DVD images.
>

Ok, I dont do any of that.

>>>> But I mostly agree, learning a new UI every release is a PIA.
>>>
>>>I didn't remember much difference moving from 98 to 2000... but when I
>>>*had* to move to XP a few years back (got a hard drive that 2000 *would
>>>not* use), it was... interesting. I'm mostly used to it now. Mostly.
>>
>> Having Win2000 as my dual boot, I will say that it's not all that hard
>> to use, but was the beginning of the annoying NT system.
>
>Well, if you want to be accurate, NT dates back to the early 90's,
>contemporary with Win3x.
>

I remember NT being talked about back when I used Win3.x. It seemed
pretty rarely used back then, sort of like linux, it was only for the
"geeks". I always wondered how much of that early NT was worked into
Win2000 and up.....

>> It began that nasty NTFS drive format, which I refuse to use.
>
>Has its good points. If I was using a computer with *just* NT installed,
>I'd use it... but the only thing I have that is *only* NT is my Win7
>tablet. (Vista+ won't install on FAT drives, so in my case it's a moot
>point.)
>

I wont use it on my main computer, not even on my Win2000 partition. I
want to be able to access everything from Dos. My laptop came with NTFS
and XP installed that way. I wanted to change the format, but there is
no XP install CD for it, and I was told I cant use PartitionMagic and
change the format without reinstalling. Since nothing important is kept
on that computer, all I'll lose is the OS if it fails, so no biggie.

>> It began
>> that stupid folder called "Documents and Settings", which contains
>> "Administrators", "All Users", and "Default User". (This is one very
>> irritating thing for me, because I never know which one contains what,
>> and most are repeats......). After all, this computer is only used by
>> me, I'm the ONLY user, all of thse should be in ONE folder.
>
>Can always run as the Administrator, and rename the account as you wish.
>Just sayin'.

Are you saying that I can get rid of the THREE categories and just have
one called Administrator? HOW?
Having three is so annoying, because stuff is places in any of them for
waht seems to have no rhyme or reason. I dont need 3 of them since only
"I" use the computer. Even in 98, I like to keep my "work" (documents)
WITH the program, not in "my documents".

>> Then there
>> came XP with all the stupid questions. Everyting I want to do, has a
>> "do you really want to ______". I get pissed at that shit. I didnt hit
>> the button to do _____ just for the hell of it...
>
>...but many people *do* hit things by accident.
>

I dont mind being asked when I delete something, I do accidentally hit
that sometimes, but there are many other times it asks.

>> And then comes the bootup and shutdown times. Both 2000 and XP seem to
>> take forever compared to 98. Hell, on my laptop with XP, I might just
>> turn it on for one minute, because I left myself a note, such as
>> someone's phone number. I read the note and shut off, then I'm forced
>> to hit TWO shutdown buttons (as if one isn't enough), and then I watch
>> it say "savings settings". WHAT SETTINGS? Not one fucking thing was
>> changed, I read a phone number, nothing else....
>
>But XP doesn't know that. It doesn't have a way to verify that nothing was
>changed from startup to shutdown. Bad decision by MS, maybe, but them's the
>way it is.
>

It SHOULD KNOW. It should be apparent that no changes were made to the
system files. That should be apparent. Poor design by MS.

>> Thats what I like most about 98. I have it set to boot to dos. 20
>> seconds later I open my text file that contains my notes, and shut off
>> the computer. If I want to enter Win98, I "WW" which is my batch file
>> to start windows (actually it just runs WIN.COM).
>
>You saved yourself 1 keytroke. Bravo. (Why not just name it 'w'?)
>

Whatever

>> You cant do this in W2000 or XP. You got to go thru the entire bootup
>> process, waste several minutes waiting for it to boot, and then go thru
>> the shutdown hassle. This is not progress! It should not take 5
>> minutes to access a tiny text file, and shut down.
>>
>> Win2000 was irritating, XP seriously annoys me, I dont even want to
>> imagine how I'd feel about Win7 or 8....
>
>I've read that 8 has really improved startup times; supposedly at least on
>par with 9x.

Thats good.....
It only took MS nearly 12 years to fix that!
When 9x already did it......

But, hey, MS is more interested in making money by adding useless bloat
than fixing bugs.

[Axel Berger]

Auric__ wrote:
> 2GB. About the only thing that gets that big right now is databases,
> movies, and DVD images.

Actually it's 4 GB, but many applications get into trouble at 2 GB
because of thoughtless use of a signed variable for size. And I
regularly reach that limit when converting radio plays into MP3. A
serial concatenated into one file breaks the 2 GB barrier at a little
above 3 h in the intermediate WAV format.

[98 Guy]

Axel Berger wrote:

> Actually it's 4 GB, but many applications get into trouble at 2 GB
> because of thoughtless use of a signed variable for size.

If you take any large multimedia file (larger than 4 gb) and save it as
a multi-segmented RAR file archive, VLC media player will open and play
the archive if you present it with the first file of the archive.

> And I regularly reach that limit when converting radio plays into
> MP3. A serial concatenated into one file breaks the 2 GB barrier
> at a little above 3 h in the intermediate WAV format.

No reason to sample something off the radio in such a high-rez (CD)
format such that you only get 3 hours worth of material in a 2 gb file.

And a radio play that's more than 3 hours long???

If you're combining multiple episodes into a single file - why would you
even want to do that anyways?

[Axel Berger]

98 Guy wrote:
> No reason

> And a radio play that's more than 3 hours long???

> why would you even want to do that anyways?

You seem to have an opion about everything regadless of kowledge.

A first raw format before editiong should always be as lossless and high
resolution as possible to minimize artefacts and rounding errors.
Besides many standard tools expect just that format. Seven hours have
been broadcast end to end in a single go by broadcasting stations,
twelve hours split on two consecutive days, four and five hour serials
are frequent and unremarkable.
And why not one file? It declutters the drives and makes stuff much
easier to find. It is not as if I spontaneously decided "let's listen to
episode three of Paul Temple's Genf mystery tonight". I either play it
beginning to conclusion or not at all, don't you? It's not as if file
size were the slightest problem in the final compressed format after the
last edit.

Axel